English cricket fans were delighted when their team defeated Australia – long the foremost nation in international cricket. Supporters of Brighton & Hove Albion Football (soccer) Club were no doubt joyous when their team escaped relegation from top flight English football. Supporters of both teams were no doubt pleased, if a little surprised, to learn that British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was sharing vicariously in their joy. Brown is not English (he is Scottish) and hails from a part of Britain that could not be more distant from Brighton & Hove.

Though Brown is not English, some 85% of the voters he will face in next year’s UK general election are. Though he is not from Brighton & Hove the city returns three Members to the UK Parliament.  Like Brown, all are members of the Labour Party, and all will face tough fights in next year’s election. Perhaps this is why he was so keen to align himself with these sporting successes.

But it leaves an important question open.  If Brown can take time from his busy schedule to comment on uncontroversial but ultimately inconsequential matters, why do we still not know his views on the release from a Scottish prison of the largest mass murderer in UK history? Even considering the British deaths alone – 52 of them – the Lockerbie bombing claimed more lives than all the serial killers held in British jails combined.

Perhaps Brown thinks that Americans would be confused by the subtleties of the British constitution, and unable to understand why he could not prevent the release of al-Megrahi. But such a suggestion is ridiculous. Most Americans may be unable to explain the difference between a Duke and an Earl, or be puzzled as to why the husband of our Queen is not a king, but Americans do understand federalism. Your President does not control the actions of the various state governors any more than Brown can give orders to the government of Scotland.

            He cannot give orders, but he can say whether or not he thinks the Scottish decision was a good one. Barack Obama had no hesitation in distancing himself from his own state governor earlier this year, when the man was impeached. I am sure Bill Clinton did the same, when his hand-picked successor as governor of Arkansas was sent to jail.

            The problem is, what would Brown say? He has let it be known that he thinks the hero’s welcome accorded to al-Megrahi was ‘repulsive’. But what of the decision to release him? He could say he supported the decision, but that would offend the US.  He could say he opposed it, but there is documentary evidence that British government ministers favored releasing al-Megrahi two years ago, for purely commercial reasons. They wanted to facilitate an oil deal for BP.

            If UK ministers wanted to release al-Megrahi in 2007, why did it take until 2009 for it to happen? Well, in 2007, the Labour Party, which controls the British government, lost control of the Scottish Parliament and Executive. The administration in Edinburgh is controlled by the Scottish National Party. A pliant Labour administration there would probably have released al-Megrahi two years ago.

            So, let’s give the SNP credit for one thing. They kept al-Megrahi incarcerated for longer than Labour would have. The evidence that shows this also reveals why Prime Minister Brown maintains his right to silence.

For all the fulminations of Foreign Secretary David Milliband, that any suggestion of a deal would be offensive, it seems that his predecessors, when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, did discuss a possible prisoner exchange with Libya.  Blair has always denied that Megrahi could have been part of any such deal.  If he means what he says, then he was very badly briefed.  I understand that Megrahi was the only Libyan national held in any British jail at the time.

For all that, though, the suggestion that Megrahi’s release was the culmination of Blair’s talks about a deal, falls at the first hurdle of analysis.  The idea of some grand conspiracy embracing Blair, Brown, Ghadafi, and Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, is preposterous.  Sadly, I do not say this because I think that either the Labour government in Westminster or the SNP administration in Edinburgh is morally above getting into bed with a rogue regime such as Libya’s.  The reasoning is purely partisan.  I can believe that Brown or Salmond would make a deal with Ghadafi.  I cannot believe they would make a deal with each other.

So, we can conclude, that somewhere along the lines Blair’s proposed deal with Ghadafi fell apart.  There may have been some moral qualms in Westminster.  I do not rule this possibility out.  There may have been pressure from Washington, or a concern that, politically, a deal would be unsellable at home.  Most likely it fell on constitutional questions.  It is unclear that a UK administration has the power to release a prisoner held in a Scottish jail.  Probably, acting under the Royal Prerogative, it does.  But if the British and Scottish governments are divided over the use of the Royal Prerogative with regard to a prisoner held in Scotland, it could provoke a constitutional crisis.  Until 2007, there was a tame Labour administration in Scotland, which would have been pliant, but with the SNP winning the 2007 elections a deal would have become too controversial and difficult.

It is possible, therefore, that Ghadafi turned his attention to negotiating with Edinburgh because his proposed deal with London fell apart.  Formally speaking, the Scottish government cannot enter into any such deal.  It has no role in foreign policy or in foreign trade negotiations.  But deals such as this are typically informal.  They comprise nods and winks.  And any commercial opening up of Libya’s oil industry to British interests would disproportionately benefit Scotland, where much of the oil industry, and its attendant technical expertise is based.

Any such agreement with Edinburgh would, necessarily, have excluded Westminster.  There is a by-election (special election) due in Glasgow, at which the SNP is expected to be the main challenger to Labour.  (The psephology is complicated by the fact that the seat was previously held by the non-partisan Speaker of the House. Labour [the Speaker’s former party], the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats did not contest the seat against the Speaker.  The last time there was a partisan election in that constituency there were different boundaries).  Labour has held four of the eight by-elections it has defended in this Parliament, but lost three of the last four, including a Glasgow seat to the SNP.  There will be a general election within the next year.  While the Conservatives will make major gains in England, and probably Wales, the SNP seems well-placed to take seats from Labour in Scotland.  It is even possible, if the Liberal Democrats do badly, and Labour does better than I currently expect, that the SNP could hold the balance of power in Westminster.

In current circumstances, therefore, a deal between the SNP and Labour is extraordinarily unlikely.

How credible is the notion that the Scottish government made a deal – albeit an informal one – with Libya?  To determine that we need to consider the other possibilities.  Could it simply be that to thumb Scotland’s collective nose at America was thought to be a vote-winner?  If so, it was an ill-conceived idea, even apart from the moral implications.  The majority of the victims of Pan Am 103 were Americans, but there were more than 50 British citizens killed, including 11 on the ground in the small town of Lockerbie.  The reaction of the families is a key part of media coverage in stories such as this and is, inherently, unpredictable.  There must be safer ways of irritating America, with fewer risks of a political backlash at home.

Some are suggesting that doubts about Megrahi’s guilt may have influenced the decision.  I haven’t reviewed the evidence and cannot pronounce on that. Certainly the trial was a unique affair, conducted in Holland according to Scottish law.  It was necessarily limited to the evidence available, and there may have been – and probably was – additional evidence retained by the Libyans.  Almost certainly there were others involved in the plot, though if Megrahi was one of several conspirators, it does not dilute his guilt.  But such an argument does not stand up.  There is, in Scottish law, an appeals process, which Megrahi was using.  He dropped his appeal only because he was being released.  The Justice Secretary, Kenny Macaskill, could have released Megrahi on the grounds that he found the conviction to be unsafe, but he was very explicit in saying that Megrahi was guilty and that he was releasing him on compassionate grounds.  If further evidence were to cast doubt on Megrahi’s conviction, it would put the release into a different light.  But the decision to release him was made wholly on other grounds, and would be unaffected by any such considerations.

Is it possible that Macaskill was simply being sincere when he claimed the decision was made on compassionate grounds?  That seems unlikely.  The “compassion” involved seems restricted to a man dying of cancer, a not uncommon scenario, and ignoring the feelings of more than 200 still-grieving families.  Even Macaskill’s statement, which seems to vacillate back and forth, almost deliberately keeping us in suspense as to his final decision, seems to have been constructed with cruelty to the families in mind.  Remember, the sheer numbers involved mean it would have been impossible to warn the families in advance that this announcement was coming.  Many of them would have learnt the news from the media and from Macaskill’s own words.  Judge for yourselves, but, to me, this is not a man of compassion, it is a man trying to spin a decision of which he is justly ashamed.

My conclusion is that there most likely was a deal made, and for purely commercial reasons.  Gordon Brown is not in a position to order an investigation, much as he would like to embarrass the SNP, because Labour would probably have made the deal two years ago if it had had the power to deliver what Ghadafi wanted.

<object width=”560″ height=”340″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/kYoQRl_kW3M&hl=en&fs=1&”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/kYoQRl_kW3M&hl=en&fs=1&” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”560″ height=”340″></embed></object>

From the diaries by Erick.

The only real test for the stability of a constitution is not how it copes with consensus, but how it stands up to the stresses of division.  Iran’s complicated constitutional structure is about to face that test.

Some have suggested that all power lies with the Supreme Leader.  Some media have even described the position of Supreme Leader as one chosen for life.  This is not so.  On paper, the real power lies with the Assembly of Experts.  Whether that is so in practice, remains to be seen.  The Assembly of Experts chooses, supervises, and can dismiss the Supreme Leader.  There have, of course, only been two Supreme Leaders, and the first died in office, without ever having been challenged.  But the constitution of Iran does not require that the role be a job for life, not does it require that the Assembly remain supine.

There is no evidence that the Assembly of Experts has ever challenged any opinion or position of the Supreme Leader – though since it meets only in secret, no such evidence would be likely to come to light, even if it had been a very boisterous organisation.  But this crisis is one that has no precedent.  At the very summit of the state, revolutionary loyalists who served with Khomeini are deeply divided.

Read More →

It seems as though the ruling Congress Party has made major gains in the general election and the BJP has conceded defeat.   The result was unexpectedly good for Congress, which seems to have been because the large youth vote – a rather apolitical group more interested in commerce – swung behind Congress at the last minute.

This is good for a number of reasons:

1.  The BJP is a Hindu supremacist party – something which is obviously unsustainable in a country with substantial Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh and Christian minorities.

2.  L K Advani, the BJP leader, who is particularly awful even by the BJP’s standards, has probably missed his last chance to become Prime Minister.  A younger generation of BJP leaders is now likely to emerge.

3.  With substantial gains by Congress and its core allies the coalition is likely to be much less dependent on the left to maintain power.  The reforms which Congress introduced in the 1990s can now be resumed.

4.  Manmohan Singh, the PM is 76 and unlikely to stay PM throughout the Parliament.  One of the rising stars of the Party is the Chief Minister of the Dehli region, and her name is likely to be in the western media more often.  This is good news because her name is Sheila Dikshit (tee hee!).

It is worth mentioning that one other rising star is likely to be Rahul Gandhi – son of former PM Rajiv Gandhi and current Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi.  His grandmother and great grandfather were also Prime Ministers and his great great grandfather was President of the Party in the 1910s and 1920s.  Rahul was educated at Rollins College, Florida and Trinity College, Cambridge.

There are many good reasons for criticizing the Congress Party.  The party that has dominated India for most of the past 60 years was pretty much unchallenged for the first half of that period. During that time it introduced one of the most comprehensively socialist economic structures ever devised. The Fabian socialism of the 1930s London School of Economics – the IngSoc of George Orwell’s 1984 – was fully developed in India. While much of Asia bounded ahead, India languished.

To make matters worse, Congress is the private property of a single family: the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.  Motilal Nehru, who led party twice, in 1919 and 1928, was never Indian Prime Minister, because the country was still under British rule.  His son, Jawaharlal Nehru, succeeded him as President of the party, and was India’s longest serving PM from 1947 to 1964.

Less than two years after Nehru left office his daughter, Indira Gandhi, India’s second longest serving PM, took the reins of power. She should not be confused with Mahatma Gandhi, to whom she was not related.  She served from 1966 to 1977 and from 1980 to 1984.  She was succeeded directly by her son, Rajiv.  His five years in office has been matched, but barely exceeded, by three others who are not part of the dynasty.   The party today is led by Rajiv’s widow, Sonia Gandhi, who is Italian.  She has chosen not to be PM, installing Congress loyalist and former Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh, who has been in office for five years.  He is elderly and thought to be keeping the seat warm for Rajiv and Sonia’s son, Rahul, or possibly their daughter, Priyanka Vadra.

What could be worse than a party like this?  Well, the BJP could, and it most certainly is.

How would most Americans react if a militant group of Native Americans wanted to demolish the Catholic Cathedral in New York, claiming that it was on the site of a previous temple and the birthplace of one of their gods?  This would be regarded, I think, as an extreme and eccentric view. Yet a very similar issue is what made the BJP leader, L K Advani, famous.  He wanted to demolish a mosque which dates from 1528, on the grounds that it stands on the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. Since Muslims conquered India by force in the Sixteenth Century, it seems entirely credible – though it is not provable – that it really does stand on the site of a previous Hindu temple.  But then any Christian church in America – none as old as 1528 – could stand on a site of religious importance to Native Americans.  Who would know?

The BJP wants to outlaw religious conversion and ban the slaughter of cows as well as gain control of those portions of Jammu and Kashmir currently controlled by Pakistan or China. 

The BJP has been in power before, and actually improved relations with Pakistan rather than starting a war, as its rhetoric might imply, but L K Advani seems to be more extreme than previous leaders of the party. His prominent role in destroying the mosque at Ayodhya would make it hard for him to improve relations with India’s substantial Muslim minority or its neighbours.

There are many regional parties, which between could easily have a majority, but that would make the world’s largest democracy ungovernable.  Congress, which has recanted its socialist past, seems the least bad option.

Damian Green, Conservative spokesman on terrorism was arrested yesterday and questioned for nine hours. His home and his offices – in Parliament and in his constituency – were searched before he was bailed with out being charged.

Look at the following sentence from BBC News online.

Police say Mr Green was held on suspicion of “conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office” and “aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office” – an obscure and little-used offence under common law.

Read More →

I hear you want to appoint some Republicans to your cabinet. I hear you want to achieve real change. Good. I confess, I have seen no evidence of any political courage on your part. I don’t know that you have ever confronted your party’s special interests on policy, but then, you didn’t have to. Now that you have won the election, perhaps that is what you are planning to do.

Read More →

I really don’t want to jump in before the appeals process is exhausted, because everyone, no matter how much I despise them, has the right to be presumed innocent, but I feel this is essential. It would be irresponsible if you were not already considering the matter, so now is the time to influence your thinking. In any case, Senator Stevens has been convicted so, appeals process or not, we currently have to consider him guilty.

Read More →

Barack Obama accuses John McCain of playing the race card. Most voters seem to think it is Obama who is playing the race card, but he is actually doing something rather different. He is playing the racist card.

There is a difference. The race card – as most people tend to define it – is about appealing to people on grounds of race: don’t vote for the black/white/Jewish/etc. guy. Obama is trying to paint his opponent as a closet racist.

Read More →